Navigate:

New role for 'Daily Show' reporter

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Most people know Aasif Mandvi as one of 'The Daily Show’s' sarcastic and witty correspondents.
AP Photo

Most people know Aasif Mandvi as one of the sarcastic and witty correspondents on "The Daily Show." So his latest role will take a lot of people by surprise: Mandvi plays a Middle Eastern detainee in "The Response," a courtroom drama based on actual transcripts of the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals.

We caught up with Mandvi over e-mail to chat about "The Response" and some other topics on our mind.

POLITICO: Your role in this movie is quite different than your "Daily Show" persona. What motivated you to tackle this particular project?

Mandvi: The situation down at the Guantanamo prison is something that I have felt very strongly about. When Sig [Libowitz] came to me with this project, it was clear that letting people know what was going on in these tribunals was something that was incredibly important.

POLITICO: Here in Washington, where everything is political, moviegoers will inevitably try to read between the lines of this film. What would you like people to think leaving the film?

Mandvi: I don't want to tell people what they should think. However, the film poses a complicated question. For myself, it’s very simple. America undermines its own ideals when it ignores the very values it is promoting around the world. You cannot ask other people in the world to follow the law and act responsibly if we don't do the same ... and being afraid is not an excuse.

POLITICO: "The Daily Show" obviously focuses a lot on Washington but views it as a rather strange, unusual city (which it is). What is it about D.C. that makes New Yorkers scratch their heads?

Mandvi: New Yorkers cannot deal with that level of honesty and integrity. It makes them nervous.

POLITICO: This weekend is the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, and everyone recalls Stephen Colbert's performance in 2006. Jon Stewart told Bill Moyers in 2007: "You've seen what happens when one of us ends up at the White House Correspondents’ dinner. ... It doesn’t end well.” Is the Washington crowd a comedian's nightmare? Why is that?

Mandvi: I think politicians and comedians have a lot in common. One is a group of approval-seeking narcissists who will say and do anything to be liked ... and comedians are always talking about politics.

POLITICO: So, that said, would you accept an offer to be the 2010 headliner at the correspondents' dinner?

Mandvi: No.

The film screens locally in Washington Friday at 5:30 pm at the Landmark E Street Cinemas.

Readers' Comments (25)

Mandvi: I don't want to tell people what they should think. However, the film poses a complicated question. For myself, it’s very simple. America undermines its own ideals when it ignores the very values it is promoting around the world. You cannot ask other people in the world to follow the law and act responsibly if we don't do the same ... and being afraid is not an excuse.

I guess I'd have to say that any goodwill generated from what basically amounts to tying our soldiers' hands behind their backs is marginal, at best. We used to have a saying that only an officer could have the cajones to give the "honor" speech shortly before sending the enlisted into the blood and dirt. War is a dirty, ugly affair. People die, often in horrific ways. To all the people who've recently become so taken aback at the reality of the war on terror (or should I say, overseas contingency operations), perhaps you should've thought about that before (and no, I'm not particularly saying to you, DB).

Torture aside (as I don't particularly ascribe to the notion that Gitmo policies amount to torture), I think Mr. Mandavi is essentially one step removed from being a war profiteer. He feels so strongly about Gitmo that he's willing to "take one for the team" by exposing it (and making a handy sum of cash for his efforts). Yeah, real honorable.

New Yorkers cannot deal with that level of honesty and integrity

This has to be one of the most delusional characterizations of Washington, D.C., that I have ever read. Wow.

You cannot ask other people in the world to follow the law and act responsibly if we don't do the same ... and being afraid is not an excuse.

what law was broken ?

No matter how far into the sand you try to hide your head the fact is very simple. Waterboarding is torture, and has been since we signed the Geneva Convention. We prosecuted the Japanese for Waterboarding our troops during WWII.

Torture aside (as I don't particularly ascribe to the notion that Gitmo policies amount to torture),

that's interesting. here's a couple that disagree with you; the ICRC and bushco's own appointed military commissions official, judge crawford who threw out the prosecution of one detainee whom she agreed had been tortured while detained at gitmo.

No matter how far into the sand you try to hide your head the fact is very simple. Waterboarding is torture, and has been since we signed the Geneva Convention. We prosecuted the Japanese for Waterboarding our troops during WWII.

The interviewer Patrick Gavin misinterpreted both the political and professional result of the WH Dinner hosted by Colbert regarding the WH dinner and it's implications for comedians in front of DC audiences.

"POLITICO: This weekend is the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, and everyone recalls Stephen Colbert's performance in 2006. Jon Stewart told Bill Moyers in 2007: "You've seen what happens when one of us ends up at the White House Correspondents’ dinner. ... It doesn’t end well.” Is the Washington crowd a comedian's nightmare? Why is that?"

Gavin seems to think that the "It doesn't end well" refers to the result for the comedian HOSTING the event. In this case, Jon Stewart is clearly refering to the result for the POLITICIANS in the room. It was not a good result for THEM.

That event MADE Steven Colbert's career. It was anything but a nightmare for Colbert. Instead, the negative reaction was almost entirely for the Bush admin. Yes, there were some in the ROOM and plently of Bush supporters who were uncomfortable but that is excactly the audience Colbert, Stewart, and other comedians dealing in political SATIRE love to have in front of them.

The approval rating for Bush shortly after that event went down and never really recovered. And if you look at the number of Youtube hits on the event ( one of the highest rated Youtube videos at that time worldwide) it is clear that the very uncomfortableness of the DC crowd made this an even more enticing and biting event for Colbert and his brand of satire. Maybe Gavin is not too familiar with this style of satire and sees the lack of laughs from the audience in a way that is more traditional and older. that's fine and understandable but not relevant here. The traditional take on an event like this is the following: The crowd did not laugh all the time so it was a nightmare for the comedian. To the contrary, Colbert and others play to the larger audience watching and the very squirmishness of the crowd present only adds to the humor and brilliance for those watching. Just look at the equation for BORAT. If the people on camera were in on the joke and laughing, it would be less funny for those watching.

Not sure what the motivation is of the reporter here but it's a bit surprising that Mr. Gavin would misinterpret the political and professional implications of that dinner for both Steven Colbert and George Bush.

I have no problem with investigating all involved. But, legally speaking, because she had oversight means nothing. Those with the policymaking powers in the Executive Branch manipulated the law in order to find cover for illegal war crimes through terribly written legal opinions. That is the criminal violation. Pelosi hearing about the tactics after the fact without having any control over their use or implimentation may be dishonest, but it isn't criminal. And this attempt by the Right to somehow claim that since some Democrats knew, then it isn't a war crime is just pathetic. It doesn't matter what party breaks the rule of law, its illegal, and all should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary.

Pelosi hearing about the tactics after the fact without having any control over their use or implimentation may be dishonest, but it isn't criminal. And this attempt by the Right to somehow claim that since some Democrats knew, then it isn't a war crime is just pathetic. It doesn't matter what party breaks the rule of law, its illegal, and all should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary.

Let's start with Nancy P. Afterall, she had oversight.

CIA docs unclear on Pelosi interrogation briefings

By PAMELA HESS - Associated Press Writer May 07, 2009

CIA records show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorist suspects, but the records do little to settle a dispute over whether she knew waterboarding had already been used against one prisoner by then.

The CIA on Wednesday sent the House and Senate intelligence committees a chart describing the 40 congressional briefings at which the interrogation program was discussed, describing who was briefed, on what date and on what subjects.

Pelosi is only mentioned in the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002. The chart, drawn from the CIA briefers' memories and meeting notes, says the meeting described the interrogation techniques that had been used on alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah.

But the CIA chart does not specifically mention the use of waterboarding at that briefing.

According to legal memos released in April, Abu Zubayda was the first of three prisoners to be waterboarded. He underwent the procedure at least 83 times in August 2002.

The first mention of waterboarding comes in the description of a February 2003 meeting attended by Pelosi's successor on the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Jane Harman. Harman wrote to the CIA expressing concern about the techniques, the only known objection formally raised by a member of Congress at that time.

She is the government. She is responsible for oversight. If waterboarding is criminal and she knew about it and said nothing,then she is just as criminally liable. She is not some simple observer. She is the #1 Dem in the House and sat in oversight of the CIA who told her, as required by law, of the practices they were employing.

And this attempt by the Right to somehow claim that since some Democrats knew, then it isn't a war crime is just pathetic.

That is not the claim (or complaint).

The Right is jumping on Dems because, in public, they are calling waterboarding illegal, immoral, etc yet in private, they have been sitting in oversight of the Govt agency conducting waterboarding and not complaining at all... in fact they wondered if we were doing enough. This is not used as a legal point by Repubs so much as a political one.

KooL27AiD: May. 8, 2009 - 2:43 PM EST

It doesn't matter what party breaks the rule of law, its illegal, and all should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary.

No problem with that. Seems to me the CIA wanted to use the techinques. The White House gained legal counsel from the DOJ, the White House approved the techniques based on the legal advice and the US Congress was given oversight. That is how the system works.

If you think the official DOJ legal advice was wrong, that is just another opinion. Judges rule one way or another on almost every issue. It doesn't mean it was illegal. Regardless, if the Dems think it was illegal then take it to court and prove it. Stating that Bush manipulated the DOJ is just talk. Prove it - preferably in court.

Frankly, I'd welcome an open debate on the issue. Let us decide formally what techniques we want to use. Let our elected officials vote what can and can't be used.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi stands by her recollection of the meeting.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," said Daly. "The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used."

Even the CIA suggests that its account of the meetings will not settle the debate over who knew what and when.

"In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened," states the May 6 cover letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta to Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

She is the government. She is responsible for oversight. If waterboarding is criminal and she knew about it and said nothing,then she is just as criminally liable. She is not some simple observer. She is the #1 Dem in the House and sat in oversight of the CIA who told her, as required by law, of the practices they were employing.

KooL27AiD: May. 8, 2009 - 2:43 PM EST

And this attempt by the Right to somehow claim that since some Democrats knew, then it isn't a war crime is just pathetic.

That is not the claim (or complaint).

The Right is jumping on Dems because, in public, they are calling waterboarding illegal, immoral, etc yet in private, they have been sitting in oversight of the Govt agency conducting waterboarding and not complaining at all... in fact they wondered if we were doing enough. This is not used as a legal point by Repubs so much as a political one.

KooL27AiD: May. 8, 2009 - 2:43 PM EST

It doesn't matter what party breaks the rule of law, its illegal, and all should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary.

No problem with that. Seems to me the CIA wanted to use the techinques. The White House gained legal counsel from the DOJ, the White House approved the techniques based on the legal advice and the US Congress was given oversight. That is how the system works.

If you think the official DOJ legal advice was wrong, that is just another opinion. Judges rule one way or another on almost every issue. It doesn't mean it was illegal. Regardless, if the Dems think it was illegal then take it to court and prove it. Stating that Bush manipulated the DOJ is just talk. Prove it - preferably in court.

Frankly, I'd welcome an open debate on the issue. Let us decide formally what techniques we want to use. Let our elected officials vote what can and can't be used.

Proving if they manipulated the law means there needs to be reveiw by a Special Prosecutor (i.e., non-partisan). Pelosi is part fo the Legislative branch (she wasn't speaker in 2002 either), military operations and tactics are under the Executive Branch. Pelosi and every other member of Congress had no power over the techniques used whatsoever. They received briefings, and they couldn't even speak about them outside of their committees (i.e., other members of Congress), let alone the public, because they were classified. And even if all in the Congress who knew vehemtly disagreed, they had power to make them change, other than cutting off funding. Therefore, whether she heard it before or after the fact, she is not criminally liable. Neither is anyone else in Congress; it was completely out of their control to dictate to the Executive Branch what tactics are to be used. That is solely the President's duty as Commander and Chief.

The Republicans are attempting to politicize an investigation by threatening that the democrats will be outed for knowing. The only people politicizing this issue of torture are Republicans. They keep calling any investigation a "witch hunt" and then have the audacity to threaten AG Holder, that if he investigates they will start investigating his role in the Clinton WH. From the beginning, in the face of overwhelming evidence substantial enough to begin an investigation (i.e., probable cause, which isn't the same as prejudging a conviction) all the Democrats called for was a bi-partisan investigation. Anyone, no matter what their political leanings, can obviously see that there was suspicious activity. That no matter how you try to opt out of the illegality, Waterboarding has ben labeled as illegal torture for 60 years. The very fact that memos from the OLC have come out trying to do backflips around a technique that is well established as torture creates enough of a suspicion for an investigation. The Republicans had no problem investigating Clinton over Watergate, or the fact that he caught a hummer, but when it comes to tangible evidence that war crimes may have been committed they won't even go forward with investigating it. They simply want to place their head in the sand and pretend it never happened, and then make apocolyptic threats over the mere talk of investigations. Give me a break.

As far as the OLC advice, that is the lynchpin of the entire investigation. If the intent of those opinions was merely to define what could be done then they are simply opinions. However, if someone in the Executive branch approached Bybee and others and said, "listen, we want to get around the Geneva Convention and Federal Anti-Torture laws, and so you need to give us legal cover." That is criminal conspiracy, and would go beyond a mere legal opinion, that, alone, would only call for ethics violations against the lawyers by OPR or their state bar offices. If legal opinions were induced to make something all knew illegal, legal, then it is criminal.

We need a Special Prosecutor. It needs to be someone totally outside of politics like a Pat Fitzgerald.

that's news to me; the system works that allows breaking of the law by the executive branch... is this the frost nixon defense? sounds like it, sorta.

We had a legal opinion, legislative oversight and an Executive order. Bush didn't pull this out of his hind-end. He sought legal advice from the DOJ. They gave an legal opinion. Sounds like you disagree with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. IF that opinion was wrong... so be it. Find two judges and you will likely get 2 answers. That doesn't make it criminal.

Let's have a trial. No problem here. I don't have a say in it anyhow... Dems control it all. It is time to sh it or get off the pot.

The Republicans are attempting to politicize an investigation by threatening that the democrats will be outed for knowing. The only people politicizing this issue of torture are Republicans. They keep calling any investigation a "witch hunt" and then have the audacity to threaten AG Holder, that if he investigates they will start investigating his role in the Clinton WH.

It's a political war koolaid.

Republicans can't stop the Dems from investigating. What they can do is set the political stage by pointing out what the Dems knew and when they knew it and that they approved of it. The CIA isn't going to take the fall from Nancy when they, no doubt, have all the docs from those briefings. Repubs can make the political climate such that calling for a prosecutor political stupidity. Americans don't like witch hunts and so they will frame the debate as such. They certainly aren't going to lie down and let the Dems continue to ride the political anti-bush trian into the next election cycle. They own govt now. They are in charge. If they think crimes were done, then bring on the prosecutor. Let's have hearings. If the Repubs are guilty of crimes let's lock them up.

But we know that isn't going to happen. This is political hardball and Dems have no interest in getting into the mud. They know they won't win in court or in the court of public opinion. They are too deep into it and the issues are too complex. No... they will continue to throw stones and pander to their hard Left wing but will stay the course. Meanwhile, they will increase funds of the war in Afganistan, follow Bush's plan in Iraq, continue to let the deficit balloon, send earmarks to all their home districts and voting blocs and export Gitmo to somewhere else.

right! from some of the same buffoons smacked down by SCOTUS for legal opinions that geneva didn't apply to gitmo detainees and having their legal opinions peer reviewed are now potentially facing disbarment. so we all know this isn't the first time ol'bybee and yoo got it W-R-O-N-G! yoo's legal opinion on the NSA program and FISA didn't pass muster with the senate either. bybee and yoo have the same track record as cheney- ain't been right about nothin'.

so shall we just chalk all this up to another heckuva job by bush incompetents???

Gee, where do you think Attorney General Moonbeam of Calif will come down on this?

db531: May. 8, 2009 - 4:45 PM EST

so shall we just chalk all this up to another heckuva job by bush incompetents

Dems have been doing that since before he took office. No change there.

so we all know this isn't the first time ol'bybee and yoo got it W-R-O-N-G!

Legal decisions, including circuit court decisions get overturned all the time... there have been times with the SCOTUS overturn 100% of the rulings from lower courts. Does this make it WRONG? It does in a strictly legal sense. But it doesn't make it criminal. A big difference.

As the Dean of the Chapman school of law (where Yoo is a visiting prof) said:

"He wrote a comprehensive legal analysis of a gray area of the law, I think John's legal analysis taps into the founders' understanding of the executive."

So... this is not a frost Nixon sort of thing. It is a legal sort of thing.